EnySpree wrote:Briggs loves Wolters

I'd like to take a50 game look at him.

BRIGGS wrote:

EnySpree wrote:Briggs loves Wolters

I'd like to take a50 game look at him.

Nba League pass?

BRIGGS wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:You mean Wolters? I'd rather keep Larkin. Aldrich is the only player I'd actually be happy to keep but Larkin is arguably worth his salary and is playing at a higher level than Wolters has.

Larkin is a free agent after the season

BRIGGS wrote:

holfresh wrote:

EnySpree wrote:Briggs loves Wolters

And Jimmer..

If it was up to me pick 24 would've been turned into a combination of mike muscala and either Nate wolfers or erick Greene. And I think wed be better off

BRIGGS wrote:Shane Larkin is one player the Knicks have that has value. Obviously not high value but he has what I would call a Patty Mills niche. A secondary guard who can hit the three at a good rate handle and play defense. I kind of know what he is already I have my information on him and the Knicks have already made him an UFA with no rights to him. The Bucks would want something for Wolters who is essentially the Bucks 4th PG. I'd love to take a look at Wolters for 40 games. I don't like his 3 pt shot nor does he have any type of game changing defensive or athletic skills but at 6-5 is he a guy I can use in a three guard set or two PG set or is he a guy I can use as a 6-8 man? I can only find out by putting him on my team and putting the ball in his hands for 30 minutes. I get zero value from putting the ball in Jose Caldeons hands. I get nothing. If we want "value" out of this season(beyond losing every game we can)--we need to be opportunistic and open to change. Minnesota is getting back Martin Perovic and Rubio--they will start to win--that probably close to a 500 team when healthy. We will be in comp with Philly all year for spots 1-2 under almost any circumstance. The Knicks already know they have to do this. But we can try to improve while we lose. This is why id look at moves like these. Im not married to any player Cole A Id trade him in a minute if a good deal came by. Thats the only thing the Knicks have gotten right--they are now trying to plays guys to get value out of them.

holfresh wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Shane Larkin is one player the Knicks have that has value. Obviously not high value but he has what I would call a Patty Mills niche. A secondary guard who can hit the three at a good rate handle and play defense. I kind of know what he is already I have my information on him and the Knicks have already made him an UFA with no rights to him. The Bucks would want something for Wolters who is essentially the Bucks 4th PG. I'd love to take a look at Wolters for 40 games. I don't like his 3 pt shot nor does he have any type of game changing defensive or athletic skills but at 6-5 is he a guy I can use in a three guard set or two PG set or is he a guy I can use as a 6-8 man? I can only find out by putting him on my team and putting the ball in his hands for 30 minutes. I get zero value from putting the ball in Jose Caldeons hands. I get nothing. If we want "value" out of this season(beyond losing every game we can)--we need to be opportunistic and open to change. Minnesota is getting back Martin Perovic and Rubio--they will start to win--that probably close to a 500 team when healthy. We will be in comp with Philly all year for spots 1-2 under almost any circumstance. The Knicks already know they have to do this. But we can try to improve while we lose. This is why id look at moves like these. Im not married to any player Cole A Id trade him in a minute if a good deal came by. Thats the only thing the Knicks have gotten right--they are now trying to plays guys to get value out of them.

Why do we need another slow footed PG who can't defend the position..Isn't two on the roster enough??

Wolters is probably a little quicker longer and bigger than you think. He shouldve been all rookie 2nd team at worst last year. If he can improve his 3 pt shooting--he could be a starter or close to it on the right team for years. Remember hes 6-5 and he has some very nice shake to his game. He gets to the rack very well. Big difference between Wolters and Larkin--Wolters can make plays at the rim and in the lane Larkin cannot. Wolters also has more control of his dribble a better passer/rebounder and hes 6+inches taller. Larkin more of a perimeter -based PG--again it depends on what you want.

TripleThreat wrote:

BRIGGS wrote: He gets to the rack very well. Big difference between Wolters and Larkin--Wolters can make plays at the rim and in the lane Larkin cannot. Wolters also has more control of his dribble a better passer/rebounder and hes 6+inches taller. Larkin more of a perimeter -based PG--again it depends on what you want.

You can't change the narrative on the fly to make a trade unlikely to happen seem more plausible, Briggs.

Wolters is either a better player than Larkin, or he is not. He has a higher future upside or he doesn't. You want to push that it's a wash when it comes down to looking at the compensation issue. But then you want to push Wolters is a better and more versatile player once it gets to the issue on if the player can help the Knicks or not.

A trade that actually has a chance of happening has to appear, on the surface, to benefit BOTH TEAMS. It has to be defensible, at least in some fashion, to the owner, the fanbase and the general media, even the NON KNICKS side of it.

This is a trade just to make a trade. There is NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, that indicates that Larkin's play and future value are anything the Bucks are looking for right now. NOTHING.

You just want Wolters, which is fine, he's a nice young player who might thrive with more opportunity. But you can't get him for NOTHING. The Bucks won't trade him for NO REASON. Ok sure Wolters and his agent would like more minutes. WHAT RESERVE ON ANY NBA TEAM WOULDN'T LIKE MORE MINUTES? WHAT AGENT OUT THERE WOULDN'T LIKE HIS CLIENTS ON THE BENCH TO GET MORE MINUTES? Do you think that's going to move the needle on a trade?

Briggs, I'll give you credit, in a recent post, you admitted that there finally exists a possibility to you that the Knicks won't win the draft lottery and won't get Okafor and might have to actually consider other players. It only took me like four months of hammering you on that for you to actually budge. I'm curious how long it will take for you to start assessing potential trades from the NON KNICKS side of the equation.

No team is going to help the Knicks just for the sake of helping the Knicks or Wolters or Wolters agent.

Just because a guy in a Knicks uniform has a solid stretch of play over a period of a few games doesn't automatically jack up his trade value. The NBA marketplace simply doesn't work that way. Cole Aldrich had a nice little stretch. You'll fail to mention that his big numbers game came against Portland with LMA and Robin Lopez out, and the Blazers running out Freeland and Thomas Robinson out there. But Aldrich suddenly doesn't become a hot commodity just because he had a nice stretch. Now a half season of kicking ass is one thing. Or tearing it up from the start to the trade deadline is another thing, but a small sample size isn't going to really move the trade value needle.

Wolters will cost the Knicks a pick. The Knicks will not get a 2nd for Larkin. I wish otherwise but that would just be a wish. Accept it Briggs, to get something of value, you need to surrender something of value.

My bet is there are teams who value Larkin higher than Wolters. Face it--maybe Milwaukee does now that J Kidd is there. Nate has had no run--he's the 4th PG on the bench there. His value is not high. I'm sure the player and the players agent would like to get him to a situation where he will be given a nice chance to play. Ny affords that opportunity. Teams placate players in situations like these. My bet is we could move Larkin for a two in a 3way that transfers Wolters to us. This is a nothing for the Bucks. And this is not some kind of out of bounds one sided proposal. This is a simple threeway move that gets Nate playing--Larkin to a team that might like what he brings and a future 2 to the Bucks. They have no chance of getting more unless he is part of a bigger trade for other players. But while he doesnt play his value is trickling down.